Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Site no longer matches OS map

Options
  • 30-09-2013 11:58am
    #1
    Wavey
    Registered Users Posts: 861 ✭✭✭


    Morning all,

    I am not sure if this belongs here so Mods please move if needed.

    Background:

    My house is at the end of a row of semi detached house and backs onto a park.
    This means there ia a triangular "dead spot" behind our back wall.
    A few ears ago we had terrible anti-social activity in that dead spot with beer bottles, fireworks, and other items being thrown of the wall. there were gangs of 15 kids hiding and drinking in there. Not pleasant.
    I started communicating with several local TDs about this and also the parks dept.
    My proposal was to buy this corner off the CoCo and as a result get rid of the "dead spot" and anti-social activity.
    There was not alot any of them could do as it turned out the that this little triangle of land was actually still owned by the original estate developer. These houses were built 35 years ago.
    I engaged a solicitor to try and make contact with the developer but this failed. The assumption was that they had gone out of business years ago.

    After about 12 months of this I decided to take action myself. With agreement from my neighbor I knocked my wall and rebuilt it in such a way to reduce the deadspot. on the park side. this also increase my back garden by aboput 20sqm.
    As there was now nowhere for the kids to loiter, The anti-social activities went away.


    Now:

    Due to my job I may now have to relocate and possibly sell this house..
    The dilemma I face is that the OS map no longer matches where my boundry wall is.
    I need to decide on the best way forward and have a few questions....

    I recall when I bought the house, nobody came to inspect the property to see if it matched the OS map. A land registry search was done but that was all. Is this the standard practice?

    If I just sold the house without doing anything more, what would be the position of the new owner? Could the original developer come out of the woodwork and demand the land back? Pretty unlikly but I would want move out with a clear concience.

    If this did happen in a few years where would the law stand?
    Could they somehow come after me even after the sale has gone through?

    Any advice?

    thanks,
    Wavey.


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    _Kaiser_
    Registered Users Posts: 28,865 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    Easiest thing would be to rebuild the wall in its original configuration and let the new owner deal with any fallout from an anti-social perspective.

    Not nice certainly, but probably the least legally troublesome?


  • Options
    #3
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,414 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    It isn't a huge problem, especially once you have had the land for 12 years.

    Talk to a solicitor about adverse possession and getting the land registered in your name.


  • Options
    #4
    Wavey
    Registered Users Posts: 861 ✭✭✭Wavey


    Hi Victor,

    It has only been about 5 years so I dont think the adverse possession route will work.


  • Options
    #5
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,394 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    So to sum up the OP has stolen 20sqms of public land and wants to try and sell it!:eek:


  • Options
    #6
    Peterx
    Registered Users Posts: 2,116 ✭✭✭Peterx


    Rebuild your original wall, leaving the new wall up also.

    Once the house is sold, send a letter into the letter box of the new owners explaining that they can knock down the inner wall and claim another 20sqm of back garden - if they wish.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Two things- I'd suggest rebuilding the original wall as per above- but perhaps turning it into a secret garden. The new purchaser will have to know the status of it though- don't make any attempt to hide it.

    The other thing- the law of adverse possession isn't as clear cut as simply saying its 12 years across the board.

    Where the original owner of the land is deceased- sole and exclusive use of the land for 6 years is sufficient to establish an inalienable right to possession.

    In the case where the original owner has not visited the site for 12 years (and this extends to even looking over a hedge at it)- you establish a right to the property.

    In a case where the property is owned by the state and an individual is attempting to claim adverse possession- the law now states they must have had sole and exclusive use of the land for a period of 30 years (not 12).

    The 12 year rule only applies to private ownership of a property being extinguished, the 30 year rule was brought in as a result of lets call them members of an ethnic minority group- blocking off public property with boulders, using it as an illegal halting site, and then extorting money from the state to vacate the land..........

    OP- one way or the other- you don't have a right to sell the land that is not yours, nor do you have a right to represent it as for the sole ownership or use by a new purchaser. Your possession of the land for 5-6 years- is not transferable to the purchaser- the clock restarts from when they purchase your land.

    I'd suggest getting professional advice on this- but I'd also suggest you're going to have to rebuild the original wall.


  • Options
    #8
    Mrs OBumble
    Registered Users Posts: 25,952 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    I'd also suggest you're going to have to rebuild the original wall.

    Why - is there some law that says that every property must be enclosed by a wall? Surely the OP's property can just have an open border at the rear?


  • Options
    #9
    newmug
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,571 ✭✭✭newmug


    OP, its not the OS map that counts, its the Land Registry map. I think there's some form you can fill in to get the OS to map things the way they actually are on the ground, and then match the LR map with the new OS map.


  • Options
    #10
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,530 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    Don't knock walls, just put up a trellis fence it's by far the cheapest option.


  • Options
    #11
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,414 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    So to sum up the OP has stolen 20sqms of public land and wants to try and sell it!:eek:
    More correctly, he has taken possession of some abandoned land.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Just note- you're looking at the 30 year rule- not the 12 year rule.


  • Options
    #13
    niallb
    Registered Users Posts: 2,734 ✭✭✭niallb


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    Just note- you're looking at the 30 year rule- not the 12 year rule.
    Why? OP tried to buy it from CoCo, and it turned out it wasn't theirs.
    It belonged to the estate developer - unseen for anything up to 35 years.


  • Options
    #14
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,394 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    Victor wrote: »
    More correctly, he has taken possession of some abandoned land.
    No he mentions it is a piece of a public park. No suggestion it was abandoned just there was anti social behaviour.


  • Options
    #15
    ScottStorm
    Registered Users Posts: 364 ✭✭ScottStorm


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    No he mentions it is a piece of a public park. No suggestion it was abandoned just there was anti social behaviour.

    Read the original post again, the land is owned by the developer, no mention of public Park.

    Don't know why I responded to you as you are clearly trolling again.


  • Options
    #16
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    ScottStorm wrote: »
    Read the original post again, the land is owned by the developer, no mention of public Park.

    Don't know why I responded to you as you are clearly trolling again.

    If you have a problem with a post- either refute the post factually- or use the 'Report Post' function (that little triangle with an exclamation mark) to bring the post to the attention of moderators. Backseat moderating will not be tolerated.

    Regards,

    The_Conductor


  • Options
    #17
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,394 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    ScottStorm wrote: »
    Read the original post again, the land is owned by the developer, no mention of public Park.

    You are right I made a mistake but they are trying to sell something they don't own


  • Options
    #18
    Mrs OBumble
    Registered Users Posts: 25,952 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    You are right I made a mistake but they are trying to sell something they don't own

    I haven't seen any suggestion that the OP thinks s/he will get more money because of the extra bit of land. (Though yes, the absense of ASB outside the back wallk will probably do that.)

    But most of the advice here as been that they should be totally honest about the status of that land, I don't see anyone telling them to "sell" it.


Advertisement